I created a page entitled "Elvis Presley's favourite books" at this link and have heard nothing. What's going on? Have I not submitted it properly? Do I have to wait longer? Please let me know.
Hi Bruce. Yes, Elvis Presley's favourite books is posted on Wikipedia and is a Wikipedia article. As you can see from this, I edited the article by adding a category to it. This way, those editors interested in Elvis Presley are more likely to find the article. Also, please feel free to post on my talk page. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic at all. It's a compilation of Elvis Presley's favorite books. The title itself is subjective, since Elvis did not say what his favorite books were. There is no anti-Elvis bias on Wikipedia. We're just enforcing Wikipedia policy. Your article is in violation of policy, and as any other editor would agree, it doesn't belong here. Sorry, Nishkid64 ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Elvis presley spiritual books, by
Calton (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Elvis presley spiritual books was previously deleted as a result of an
articles for deletion (or another
XfD)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Elvis presley spiritual books, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate
Elvis presley spiritual books itself. Feel free to leave a message on the
bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --
Android Mouse Bot 2
05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that your message was merely a gassier and less coherent version of what you wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Elvis_Presley.27s_favourite_books, I see no point in responding. I will make two points, though:
1) Any further communication by e-mail will be treated as public, and will be revealed at my discretion. If you have a message for me, do so publicly on my talk page.
2) Storing deleted articles on your user page in order to dodge the deletion process does not and has never worked. If the deletion review upholds the deletion of the original article -- which it certainly will -- then you should remove the copy on your user page. If you don't, it will either be taken to this process by myself to be deleted or it will be immediately deleted by an admin who doesn't feel the need to jump through those extra hoops. If you want to put up this material on the Web, find a free webhost somewhere else and put it there, but it doesn't belong here. -- Calton | Talk 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Bruce7777777, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how User:Bruce7777777 is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{ hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:User:Bruce7777777]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. DES (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I created a page entitled "Elvis Presley's favourite books" at this link and have heard nothing. What's going on? Have I not submitted it properly? Do I have to wait longer? Please let me know.
Hi Bruce. Yes, Elvis Presley's favourite books is posted on Wikipedia and is a Wikipedia article. As you can see from this, I edited the article by adding a category to it. This way, those editors interested in Elvis Presley are more likely to find the article. Also, please feel free to post on my talk page. -- Jreferee ( Talk) 19:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is not encyclopedic at all. It's a compilation of Elvis Presley's favorite books. The title itself is subjective, since Elvis did not say what his favorite books were. There is no anti-Elvis bias on Wikipedia. We're just enforcing Wikipedia policy. Your article is in violation of policy, and as any other editor would agree, it doesn't belong here. Sorry, Nishkid64 ( talk) 18:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Elvis presley spiritual books, by
Calton (
talk ·
contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Elvis presley spiritual books was previously deleted as a result of an
articles for deletion (or another
XfD)
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Elvis presley spiritual books, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Please note that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it did not nominate
Elvis presley spiritual books itself. Feel free to leave a message on the
bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --
Android Mouse Bot 2
05:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that your message was merely a gassier and less coherent version of what you wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Elvis_Presley.27s_favourite_books, I see no point in responding. I will make two points, though:
1) Any further communication by e-mail will be treated as public, and will be revealed at my discretion. If you have a message for me, do so publicly on my talk page.
2) Storing deleted articles on your user page in order to dodge the deletion process does not and has never worked. If the deletion review upholds the deletion of the original article -- which it certainly will -- then you should remove the copy on your user page. If you don't, it will either be taken to this process by myself to be deleted or it will be immediately deleted by an admin who doesn't feel the need to jump through those extra hoops. If you want to put up this material on the Web, find a free webhost somewhere else and put it there, but it doesn't belong here. -- Calton | Talk 17:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on User:Bruce7777777, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as articles for deletion. If you can indicate how User:Bruce7777777 is different from the previously posted material, or if you can indicate why this article should not be deleted, I advise you to place the template {{ hangon}} underneath the other template on the article, and also put a note on [[Talk:User:Bruce7777777]] saying why this article should stay. An admin should check for such edits before deleting the article. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Please read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 4 under General criteria. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. We welcome your help in trying to improve Wikipedia, and we request you to follow these instructions. DES (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)